On Wed, 6 May 2015 11:35:45 +0200 Samuel Thibault <sthibault@debian.org> wrote: > Neil Williams, le Wed 06 May 2015 09:47:36 +0100, a écrit : > > Lack of widespread interest in any particular port is a problem with > > that port not having widespread appeal. > > And lack of helping maintainers will entail a lack of working stuff in > the port, and thus a more difficult appeal, and the loop is over. Only because there aren't enough people sufficiently interested because what you are lacking is manpower to keep up. A port which cannot keep up with itself is just a nice idea that didn't actually work and that will reduce any remaining appeal the port once had. So, yes. The loop is over. It sounds like it is time to accept that. > But we do see now and then obvious patches which don't get included. > So the porters did spend time to make the port support more packages > (which is necessary to get to master and thus win the "FCC" label), > and thus have less time to work on the port itself and make the port > appealing, and only to see their patches being ignored. > > Really, I do agree with you to some extent. But the reality is that > quite a few BTS entries get much beyond that extent. You are again viewing the priority only from your own viewpoint. The entries in the BTS which you describe have clearly not got beyond the extent of the priority of the maintainer - the maintainer has other stuff which is - by definition - higher priority and more fun. Just because you view these entries as waiting too long for your needs does not mean that the maintainer needs to do anything about it. The maintainer, like it seems a lot of other people, doesn't have sufficient interest to make that work a priority. The only thing you can do to change that is to make the port more relevant, interesting and active. If the only people interested are all at 100% then the port has failed to gain enough interest. A port in this state has failed to attract enough manpower to keep itself alive - where alive is the point where required changes can be made in a suitable timeframe to not overlap with the next round of changes, allowing the port to move forward. A port which stagnates at the point of not being able to retain an amount of working packages and there is too much work to do to get new packages supported is a port which has *failed*. It has failed to attract enough interest, to have a wide enough appeal and to have enough manpower to survive. It's dead Jim. You've admitted that the port cannot keep pace because it needs changes to be made by maintainers who do not see the port as a particular priority and that this blocks or impedes further changes. You've tried and failed to increase the level of interest in the port which would have changed those priorities and the port has failed to gain more manpower. That is a failed port. Stop wasting your (and my) time. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
pgp2apn1NHbw3.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature